problematic; for his character depends inrnlarge part upon fortunate family and socialrncircnmstances for which he canrnclaim no credit.” Evidently Rawls doesrnnot believe any of us comes to deservernver’ much in life since, by his lights, ourrncharacter, the source of our meritoriousrnor virtuous (as well as vicious) conduct, isrnlargely not of our own making. It is nornsurprise, then, that Rawls takes us all tornbe equal and so believes that no onernought to have a better go of it than anyonernelse unless such a policy advancesrnthe lot of us all.rnThis tribal view of human communityrnlife is what ultimately underlies Rawls’rn(and many other thinkers’) preference forrnaggressive redistribution of benefits andrnharms in any human community.rnIn order to address this matter, it is necessaryrnto explore whether human beingsrnare free to make significant choices inrntheir lives, choices that will make a seriousrndifference in whether they achievernvarious advantages for themselves andrntheir loved ones. In short, we need to settlernthe issue of freedom of the will, a topicrnvery rarely addressed by those who pursuernthe study of politics.rn— Tibor R. MachanrnOrange, CArnAre You a Member of The Rockford Institute ?rnWouldn’t you like to know what Chronicles editors do whenrnthey’re not writing for Chronicles! For a tax-deductiblernmembership donation of $25, you will receive thernInstitute’s quarterly publication, Main Street Memorandum, yourrnsource for all the hard-hitting commentary and Rockford Institute Jrnnews that can’t fit in the pages of Chronicles. To join, send /rna check for $25 to:rnTRI Membershiprn928 North Main StreetrnRockford, IL 61103rnrrnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnMODERN EGALITARIANISM canrnbe mind-numbing, as two recent incidentsrn—the first in the Southwest, the secondrnin the Midwest—show.rnThe first, of course, is the shootingrnspree at Columbine High School. Mostrnof Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s victimsrnwere either Christians or athletes.rnThe former were murdered simply becausernthey were Christians. The killersrnasked one pretty girl if she believed inrnGod; when she answered that she did,rnthe)’ assassinated her. The athletes werernselected because they wore a dishnctiverncap and generally had more privileges atrnschool than the murderers.rnHarris and Klebold were an extremernexpression of the political correctnessrnwhich has become central to the averagernhigh-school curriculum in recent years.rnTheir actions (and Harris’s website) suggestrnthat they were crusading egalitarians.rnThey were willing to kill anyone whornwished to distinguish himself from thernherd. The fact that they were even willingrnto kill a black who was bent on improvingrnhimself indicates that they mayrnhave taken note of the fact that blacks as arngroup now have special privileges.rnIf the events at Columbine HighrnSchool represented an extreme acceptancernof egalitarianism, the achons of collegernstudent Benjamin Nathaniel Smithrnin Illinois and Indiana over the Fourth ofrnJuly weekend may have represented itsrnextreme rejection. He killed a ChristianrnKorean, a Christian black, and woundedrnnine other men, at least one of them arnChristian. Six of those whom he injuredrnwere Orthodox Jews.rnLike Klebold and Harris, he killedrnChristians; also like them, he demandedrnthe right to speak his mind, however immoralrnhis utterings may be considered.rnWhen campus autiioritics attempted tornupbraid him for handing out his pamphlets,rnhe continually chattered aboutrnthe First Amendment in a manner similarrnto that of the Fifth Amendment communistsrnof the late 40’s and early 50’s.rnIn high school, he was quieter, evenrnread philosophy. But prior to graduation,rnhe proclaimed himself a Muslim and inscribedrnin a yearbook the words utteredrnby Lincoln’s assassin: Sic semper tyrannis.rnAfter he entered college, however, he beganrnto dwell upon tiie double standardsrninherent in contemporar)’ civil-rights legalrnpractices. He became inflamed. Hernmet Matthew Hale, head of the WorldrnOCTOBER 1999/5rnrnrn